the results of restricting freedoms- be careful of what you wish for

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/16520...over-mcdonalds

i personally do not eat at mcdonalds. but i do not think we should ban mcdonalds simply because they have over priced unhealthy food. nor do i think we should selectively determine who can eat at mcdonalds.

if you like a really good hunk of steak fresh off the grill, be prepared to do without. all it takes is one law.

STOP SOPA & PIPA
HR3261 & S968

these two will hit a bit closer to all of the forum members. if these laws pass, every internet connection will be subject to termination at the will of those who are deemed the proper authorities. going to be tough to have a forum if the connection is denied. although there are many who claim it is simply poetic justice. i would consider it to be ironic.

while i do not believe that any of these actions will survive and actually be passed into law at this time. it is the idea that one group believes they can determine, actually believe they have the right to determine, a definition of freedom based on vague, ambiguous and fluid personal ideals or beliefs.

when you advocate the restriction of any freedoms for any individual, you are advocating the restriction of your own freedom.

the person you force into oppression today may well be the very person who comes for you tomorrow.

be careful what you wish for.

I love this country I hate the way its headed and the politicians that supposedly run it. When did we become China? All of the signatures on the decleration of independance are rolling over in there graves right now. SAY IT AIN'T SO SAM!!

Yes, yes, yes. When we push for, vote for, advocate for more restrictions on others we place the noose around our own necks. More rules don't stop crime in fact it can and does create black markets for restricted/outlawed items/services. This assures more problems not less. Mike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PistoneScrapProcessing

I love this country I hate the way its headed and the politicians that supposedly run it. When did we become China? All of the signatures on the decleration of independance are rolling over in there graves right now. SAY IT AIN'T SO SAM!!

---

We started down the road of becoming china and any other socialist country in the 1930's when the new deal programs were passed under Roosevelt.

Well stated PTS.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but Craigslist is even trying to get the message out about STOP SOPA & PIPA HR3261 & S968.

acually we have been under martial law since 1860, when congress was abandon by many states but never officially dismissed then un officially reconviened in 1861, we have been under Admiralty law ever since. pryor to 1860 we were under common/commercial law. next time you see a presidential news confrence or go to a cout house take a look at the flag. It is a fringed flag, not like the one you and I have, the fringed flag stands for Admiralty command. This is how they get by with pis8ing all over the constitution, the constitution has been suspended since 1860, they just avoid the up roar by not making that public knowledge.

There are plenty of looneys on the internet, so there are plenty of pages that agree with what you posted about fringe on flags. Here are two that disagree:


http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-fring.html

Quote:

---

FRINGE ON THE UNITED STATES FLAG?

For many years rumors have been spread through the United States concerning the origin and meaning of the gold fringe which frequently decorates the Stars and Stripes. It has been claimed that such fringe is without proper authorization; that it is symbolic of the end of the gold standard as the basis for United States currency; or that it indicates the substitution of admiralty courts and martial law for common law courts and procedures, as part of a conspiracy supposedly instigated by Communists, Jews, Masons, liberals, feminists, homosexuals, or other "un-American" groups.

The Flag Research Center has not conducted a thorough investigation of all the claims being made about fringe, many of which are spread by radio talk programs, cassette tapes, lectures and other non-written forms. Nevertheless its unique resources allow the Center to state the following with certainty:

Available evidence seems to suggest that the claims made about fringe on the United States flag are intended to promote the political ends -- including elimination of income taxes, re-establishment of the gold standard, and denial of legal rights to women, non-Christians, and non-Caucasians -- of those who spread those rumors.
From the standpoint of history and law, fringe on a flag has no symbolism. While each individual is free to interpret the meaning of fringe, it has no inherent or established universal symbolism.
While fringe is frequently used on military flags and in formal settings (parades, public meetings, offices of government officials, courts, inaugurations, dedication ceremonies, etc.), it is also widely used in the private sector. Examples of private usage of fringe on flags in the United States extend back for 200 years.
Fringe is and always has been a purely decorative addition -- an optional enhancement of the beauty of a flag, added on a discretionary basis when the flag is purchased. In the private sector and for non-military government uses, use of fringe is like the choice of polyester or nylon over cotton or wool for the flag itself -- simply a matter of enhancing the appearance of the flag.
Title Four of the "United States Code" which defines the Stars and Stripes neither prescribes nor proscribes the use of cords and tassels, heading, sleeve, fringe, and other accessories to the flag. It is universally recognized that the symbolic aspect of the flag is inherent in its colors and symbols, not in the physical characteristics of the flag or the things (like fringe) added to it when it is displayed.
Admiralty courts deal only with maritime contracts, collisions at sea, and similar naval questions, not with normal civil and criminal cases. There is no symbol in the United States which indicates an admiralty court. While international treaties require that ships display the national flag, maritime flags never have fringe.
Martial law is not mentioned in the United States constitution nor has martial law ever been proclaimed in the United States. The use or non-use of fringe on a United States flag in a court has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court or with martial law.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_pro...racy_arguments

Quote:

---

The gold fringe around the American flag, as displayed in many federal courts, designates them as Admiralty courts, which cannot hear other kinds of cases, or signal that the court is operating under martial law.[3] In United States v. Greenstreet, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas noted: "Defendant Greenstreet's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment identifies this Court as an 'Admiralty Court' without further discussing his allegation. If his reference is to be construed as a jurisdictional challenge, his motion is denied. Others have attempted to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty. In light of the fact that this Court has such a flag in its courtroom, the issue is addressed. The concept behind the theory the proponent asserts is that if a courtroom is adorned with a flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such decor indicates that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively. To think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits this Court's jurisdiction is frivolous ... Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction."[4] No court has ever upheld this argument, as neither the presence (or absence) of a flag (or of any other standard or element of decor), nor the fringe on a flag (which has no heraldic or vexillological significance), has any bearing whatsoever on the jurisdiction of a court.

---

call me what ever you want, I m not right about every thing dont claim to be, but I have been on this planet for nearly 70 decades, since Roosevelt, was president. I saw freedom in this country in the 40, 50, 60 etc. and shrinking every decade. more law, more regulation, more safety, more security, mean only one thing, less freedom.
We spend our dollars and even worse presious blood and lives trying to spread freedom arround the world. Consider this, "Those who have never experienced true freedom neither understand it nor desire it" in the middle east they have never experienced freedom.

here is a "conspericy Theory" for you to consider. it is called the boiling frog.

if you put a frog who has been free in a pot of hot watter he will do most any thing to get out. if you put that same frog in a pot of cool water on the stove he will be as happy as a frog in a pond. turn the burner on and the frog will remain happy untill he boils to death. Take a way just a little freedom (turn up the heat) in return for proposed security, and a generation down the road no one will miss that freedom because no one remembers it, do this from 1940 to 2012 every generation, and you end up here.

dont get me wrong America is still the best country in the world, but it isnt what it once was, and continuing down this road, for how long will it remain. just my .02

no defference intended for our international members, Im a little tilted toward America.

Quote:

---

call me what ever you want,

---

The "looneys" reference wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if it might've come across that way.

Quote:

---

dont get me wrong America is still the best country in the world, but it isnt what it once was, and continuing down this road, for how long will it remain.

---

Oh, I've seen enough of that in my own lifetime (got 5 years on Mr Dewgood), to believe it's true. I too will leave it at that.

70 decades!!?? Holy smokes.

Jk. I knew what you meant.

debating is never disrespectable, or at least real debating is not. I dont get offended easily. I very much enjoy debates, it is one way to learn, my mind and views have been changed many times over 70 years by debate. Im an old codger, im opinionated but im not a stupid old codger. one uf the most important things I have learned in life is,those that refuse to listen to a different point of view, or change their mind with new info are already brain dead. by the way this is no refference to any one here, only to me.

I figured out a long time ago that listening to the older guys was one of the best ways to learn. As the years roll past though, I'm finding the supply of older guys keeps going down...

Sopa and Pipa - aren't they Kate Middleton's sisters? LOL

i totally agree, we should stop restricting ourselves, we're in a worse economy now, WE SHOULD JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT and save the earth by not restricting ourselves and switching to solar, and maybe we should kick those politic guys out of their chairs!

The scope and boundaries of our free society have been in flux since day1. The franchise has expanded greatly (those who may participate) over 200 plus years and with it has come ever increasing time,place,and manner restrictions on speech and assembly. The modern constitution really started dying in 1803 with Marbury vrs. Madison which established the right of judicial review (or the supreme court will have the sole right to interpret the laws Congress creates within the constitutional framework). Once the courts established person hood for corporate entities (1870's) wealth could be transmitted from generation to generation and that was the beginning of the end of the free agrarian farmer Jefferson dreamed of. We have never been a democracy, we started as a representative republic and have morphed into a neo-fascist oligarchy at the federal level. The good news is you can still participate very effectively at the local level. I doubt these internet restrictions will survive as a bill, they will show themselves as regulatory law very soon so that punishment can be hidden from the prying eyes of the media. By all means explore the above assertions further..no conspiracy,just a scary evolution.

Going on what area67 said. It just killes me everytime I hear a politician say anything along the lines of america being a democracy. It just proves that they know not what america stands for and how they ever got voted into office is beyond me. If you dont even know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic what would make you think you could be in charge of one.

Totally agree, if i was President of the USA i'd get the radiation out of the country and send it into space, then i will save analog TV and then we can enjoy TV as it was

There is one fun thing about the SOPA/PIPA controversy and that is watching mega huge business interests (Time Warner vs. Google e.g.) duke it out. Since, I'm sure to them it is all about the money not principles. Generally, it's just huge corps vs. the rest of us.

It seems that big business has gained the power to control most of what goes on and most new legislation has the smell of bigger corporate profits. It has been said that "money makes the world go round" but how many of us feel that something is way out of wack? Our economies are in decline and the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is getting bigger. We can't hardly buy anything from our supermarkets that haven't been genetically engineered to look good and have reduced food value and have been sprayed with who-knows-what chemical soup, picked very green and then gassed to speed ripening at market. Not to mention that they have been transported thousands of miles in deisel guzzeling trucks to an area that has it's own local growers. One example: we see apples from New Zealand in our Canadian grocery stores (now I got nothing against the country or its people) while our local apple orchardists can't get enough for their apples to hire the pickers to harvest them, so they fall to the ground and rot. Maybe there is a better ideal to base our systems on besides money. The"Occupy Wall Street" people know that our present way of running things is unsustainable in the long run and offers a bleak future for the common man. God help us!

I most respectfully disagree with Resourceful on many points. Capitalizm got us here. Our poor live better than the middle class of the rest of the world. It is a lie that has been promoted in our leftist media that the medical care in the US is poor. Many struggle to pay the cost of medical care I admit and have be subjected to myself. We are not living in a country where only the rich can get care. Company paid medical insurance was in response to FDR wage freezes. When ever we(govt) restrict/control shortages occur. More freedom is better.

As far as the Occupy Wall Street people the best they can convey as an objective to their protests is they want us to forgive the college loans. Also they want nice clean shirt and tie jobs that pay high wages because they took the time to hang out in universities. I ask why do you and I have to pay for someone eles's kids education, job, healtcare, new car, house, food, .............?

I will once again note that no other country has the freedom of speech in their constitution, and yes that includes Canada and England.

there is a big difference between capitalism and chronie capitalism, which we have today. in the first every one starts on pretty much a level playing field and build your own castles. in chronie capitalisn a few end up with some one elses castle, provided to them through protectionist regulations and taken by unconstitutional law.

Yes yes yes, Olddude if a company sucks it should fail and the stock holders suffer the loss. You hit it right on the head. You and I pay for the mistakes of overpaid CEO's???? I don't see that as capitalism.

Its the crony capitalism that feeds the politicians that Recourseful spoke of(I aggreed with him on that point). Real capitalism has risks and rewards and its what made the US and a few other countries successful. I work hard and make money and get to keep it I will continue to work hard and be inovative. Others will do as well.

When the well meaning take away the risk and the reward from our efforts why will anyone try. All we have to do is look at the old Soviet Union to see where this can take us. Thanks, Mike.

I want you all to take a few minutes and listen to this story I heard on NPR this week. I know I know whats a red blooded constitutionalist doing listening to NPR? Well when you walk 9 miles a day you get bored of listening to the same music over and over and NPR is the only talk/news radio in denver on the FM dial. It does give me the left leaning side of the story though so here it is.

Its about chinese farmers and socialism and how they used capitalism to mass prduce the food they needed.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...nsformed-china

Great example, I'm shocked it came out of NPR(National Peoples Radio)

The truth of the first Thanksgiving has a similar outcome. They started with a "grainery in common". They failed badly. Here's a link to a complete write up explaining how the first socialist experiment failed in America.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742553/posts

Thank you all for your responses to my rant about big business. I respect the right of every person to speak their truth even if it is completely opposite of my belief.
I have to wonder why it takes two wage earners in a family to secure the necessities of life now. One used to be enough and mom used to be able to be home for their kids.
I am convinced that some of the blame for the terrible state of poverty in many third world countries could justifyably be laid on our doorsteps. North American foreign policies are geared to look after our interests first and everyone else last. Hey I'm glad that I live in a land of plenty. Couldn't we as the affluent West at least show a little compassion for those less fortunate?
I said my two cents worth and now I'm going to leave off and go strip some copper wire. I welcome all comments to any of my posts.